PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

A B Bindman

Publications and source records attributed to A B Bindman.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2000

Cross sectional study of primary care groups in London: association of measures of socioeconomic and health status with hospital admission rates.

OBJECTIVES: To calculate socioeconomic and health status measures for the primary care groups in London and to examine the association between these measures and hospital admission rates. DESIGN: Cross sectional study. SETTING: 66 primary care groups in London, total list size 8.0 million people. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Elective and emergency standardised hospital admission ratios; standardised admission rates for diabetes and asthma. RESULTS: Standardised hospital admission ratios varied from 74 to 116 for total admissions and from 50 to 124 for emergency admissions. Directly standardised admission rates for asthma varied from 152 to 801 per 100 000 (mean 364) and for diabetes from 235 to 1034 per 100 000 (mean 538). There were large differences in the mortality, socioeconomic, and general practice characteristics of the primary care groups. Hospital admission rates were significantly correlated with many of the measures of chronic illness and deprivation. The strongest correlations were with disability living allowance (R=0.64 for total admissions and R=0.62 for emergency admissions, P<0.0001). Practice characteristics were less strongly associated with hospital admission rates. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to produce a range of socioeconomic, health status, and practice measures for primary care groups for use in needs assessment and in planning and monitoring health services. These measures show that primary care groups have highly variable patient and practice characteristics and that hospital admission rates are associated with chronic illness and deprivation. These variations will need to be taken into account when assessing performance.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2000

Friend or foe? How primary care physicians perceive hospitalists.

BACKGROUND: Increased use of hospitalists is redefining the role of primary care physicians. Whether primary care physicians welcome this transition is unknown. We examined primary care physicians' perceptions of how hospitalists affect their practices, their patient relationships, and overall patient care. METHODS: A mailed survey of randomly selected general internists, general pediatricians, and family practitioners with experience with hospitalists practicing in California. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physicians' self-reports of hospitalists' effects on quality of patient care and on their own practices. RESULTS: Seven hundred eight physicians were eligible for this study, and there was a 74% response rate. Of the 524 physicians who responded, 34% were internists, 38% were family practitioners, and 29% were pediatricians. Of the 524 respondents, 335 (64%) had hospitalists available to them and 120 (23%) were required to use hospitalists for all admissions. Physicians perceived hospitalists as increasing (41%) or not changing (44%) the overall quality of care and perceived their practice style differences as neutral or beneficial. Twenty-eight percent of primary care physicians believed that the quality of the physician-patient relationship decreased; 69% reported that hospitalists did not affect their income; 53% believed that hospitalists decreased their workload; and 50% believed that hospitalists increased practice satisfaction. In a multivariate model predicting physician perceptions, internists, physicians who attributed loss of income to hospitalists, and physicians in mandatory hospitalist systems viewed hospitalists less favorably. CONCLUSIONS: Practicing primary care physicians have generally favorable perceptions of hospitalists' effect on patients and on their own practice satisfaction, especially in voluntary hospitalist systems that decrease the workload of primary care physicians and do not threaten their income. Primary care physicians, particularly internists, are less accepting of mandatory hospitalist systems. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:2902-2908

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2000

Does HIV reporting by name deter testing? MESH Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: Name-based HIV reporting is controversial in the United States because of concerns that it may deter high-risk persons from being tested. We sought to determine whether persons at risk of HIV infection knew their state's HIV reporting policy and whether they had delayed or avoided testing because of it. DESIGN: A cross-sectional anonymous survey. METHODS: We interviewed 2404 participants in one of three high-risk groups: men who have sex with men (MSM), heterosexuals attending a sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinic, and street-recruited injection drug users (IDU). Participants were asked standardized questions about their knowledge of reporting policies and reasons for having delayed or avoided testing. We recruited in eight US states: four with name-based reporting and four without; all offered anonymous testing at certain sites. RESULTS: Fewer than 25% correctly identified their state's HIV reporting policy. Over 50% stated they did not know whether their state used name-based reporting. Of the total, 480 participants (20%) had never been tested. Of these, 17% from states with name-based reporting selected concern about reporting as a reason for not testing compared with 14% from states without name-based reporting (P = 0.5). Comparing previously tested participants from states with name-based reporting to those from states without, concern about HIV reporting was given as a reason for delaying testing by 26% compared with 13% of IDU (P < 0.001), and for 26% compared with 19% of MSM (P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: Most participants did not know their state's HIV reporting policy. Name-based reporting policies were not associated with avoiding HIV testing because of worry about reporting, although they may have contributed to delays in testing among some IDU.

AIDS Serodiagnosis↗
PubMed2000

Effects of primary care coordination on public hospital patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of primary care coordination on utilization rates and satisfaction with care among public hospital patients. DESIGN: Prospective randomized gatekeeper intervention, with 1-year follow-up. SETTING: The Adult General Medical Clinic at San Francisco General Hospital, a university-affiliated public hospital. PATIENTS: We studied 2,293 established patients of 28 primary care physicians. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized based on their primary care physician's main clinic day. The 1,121 patients in the intervention group (Ambulatory Patient-Physician Relationship Organized to Achieve Coordinated Healthcare [APPROACH] group) required primary care physician approval to receive specialty and emergency department (ED) services; 1,172 patients in the control group did not. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Changes in outpatient, ED, and inpatient utilization were measured for APPROACH and control groups over the 1-year observation period, and the differences in the changes between groups were calculated to estimate the effect of the intervention. Acceptability of the gatekeeping model was determined via patient satisfaction surveys. RESULTS: Over the 1-year observation period, APPROACH patients decreased their specialty use by 0.57 visits per year more than control patients did ( P =.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.05 to -0.01). While APPROACH patients increased their primary care use by 0.27 visits per year more than control patients, this difference was not statistically significant (P =.14; 95% CI, -0.11 to 0.66). Changes in low-acuity ED care were similar between the two groups (0. 06 visits per year more in APPROACH group than control group, P =. 42; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.22). APPROACH patients decreased yearly hospitalizations by 0.14 visits per year more than control patients (P =.02; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.03). Changes in patient satisfaction with care, perceived access to specialists, and use of out-of-network services between the 2 groups were similar. CONCLUSIONS: A primary care model of health delivery in a public hospital that utilized a gatekeeping strategy decreased outpatient specialty and hospitalization rates and was acceptable to patients.

Demography↗
PubMed1999

Name-based surveillance and public health interventions for persons with HIV infection. Multistate Evaluation of Surveillance for HIV Study Group.

Name-based surveillance of HIV infection is the law in 31 U.S. states but remains controversial. This policy can be advocated solely to support surveillance of the epidemic, but a frequent argument is that it also provides a public health benefit by allowing follow-up of HIV-infected persons. These persons can then receive timely medical care and can be assisted with notifying sex and needle-sharing partners. Few comparative data are available to evaluate the outcomes of these interventions. In five states with name-based surveillance of HIV infection, the Multistate Evaluation of Surveillance for HIV Study Group surveyed a cross-sectional probability sample of persons with AIDS who tested positive for HIV before the date of their AIDS diagnosis. Health department follow-up of a reported HIV infection was not associated with more timely receipt of medical care after a positive HIV test result. Only 8.6% of persons who delayed medical care after their first positive HIV test result gave concern about being reported by name as a reason; no person gave it as the main reason. Persons who were tested anonymously and those who were tested confidentially did not differ in the mean number of sex and needle-sharing partners notified: Those tested anonymously reported personally notifying 3.85 sex and needle-sharing partners, and those tested confidentially reported notifying-personally and through the health department-3.80 partners. Many researchers and policymakers believe that name-based surveillance of HIV infection will have positive or negative effects on partner notification and access to health care. These results suggest that the potential for such effects has been exaggerated.

Anonymous Testing↗
PubMed1999

Resolving the gatekeeper conundrum: what patients value in primary care and referrals to specialists.

CONTEXT: Few data are available regarding how patients view the role of primary care physicians as "gatekeepers" in managed care systems. OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which patients value the role of their primary care physicians as first-contact care providers and coordinators of referrals, whether patients perceive that their primary care physicians impede access to specialists, and whether problems in gaining access to specialists are associated with a reduction in patients' trust and confidence in their primary care physicians. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Cross-sectional survey mailed in the fall of 1997 to 12707 adult patients who were members of managed care plans and received care from 10 large physician groups in California. The response rate among eligible patients was 71%. A total of 7718 patients (mean age, 66.7 years; 32 % female) were eligible for analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Questionnaire items addressed 3 main topics: (1) patient attitudes toward the first-contact and coordinating role of their primary care physicians, (2) patients' ratings of their primary care physicians (trust and confidence in and satisfaction with), and (3) patient perceptions of barriers to specialty referrals. Referral barriers were analyzed as predictors of patients' ratings of their physicians. RESULTS: Almost all patients valued the role of a primary care physician as a source of first-contact care (94%) and coordinator of referrals (89%). Depending on the specific medical problem, 75% to 91% of patients preferred to seek care initially from their primary care physicians rather than specialists. Twenty-three percent reported that their primary care physicians or medical groups interfered with their ability to see specialists. Patients who had difficulty obtaining referrals were more likely to report low trust (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-3.5), low confidence (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.6-2.9), and low satisfaction (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 2.6-4.2) with their primary care physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Patients value the first-contact and coordinating role of primary care physicians. However, managed care policies that emphasize primary care physicians as gatekeepers impeding access to specialists undermine patients' trust and confidence in their primary care physicians.

Aged↗
PubMed1999

Patient-physician racial concordance and the perceived quality and use of health care.

BACKGROUND: Patients from racial and ethnic minority groups use fewer health care services and are less satisfied with their care than patients from the majority white population. These disparities may be attributable in part to racial or cultural differences between patients and their physicians. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether racial concordance between patients and physicians affects patients' satisfaction with and use of health care. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 1994 Commonwealth Fund's Minority Health Survey, a nationwide, telephone survey of noninstitutionalized adults. For the 2201 white, black, and Hispanic respondents who reported having a regular physician, we examined the association between patient-physician racial concordance and patients' ratings of their physicians, satisfaction with health care, reported receipt of preventive care, and reported receipt of needed medical care. RESULTS: Black respondents with black physicians were more likely than those with nonblack physicians to rate their physicians as excellent (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55-3.72) and to report receiving preventive care (adjusted OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.01-2.98) and all needed medical care (adjusted OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.10-7.87) during the previous year. Hispanics with Hispanic physicians were more likely than those with non-Hispanic physicians to be very satisfied with their health care overall (adjusted OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.01-2.99). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm the importance of racial and cultural factors in the patient-physician relationship and reaffirm the role of black and Hispanic physicians in caring for black and Hispanic patients. Improving cultural competence among physicians may enhance the quality of health care for minority populations. In the meantime, by reducing the number of underrepresented minorities entering the US physician workforce, the reversal of affirmative action policies may adversely affect the delivery of health care to black and Hispanic Americans.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Primary care physicians' experience of financial incentives in managed-care systems.

BACKGROUND: Managed-care organizations' use of financial incentives to influence the practice of primary care physicians is controversial. We studied the prevalence and effects of these incentives. METHODS: We surveyed a probability sample of primary care physicians practicing in the largest urban counties in California in 1996. The physicians were asked about the types of incentives they encountered, the amount of income that was keyed to incentives, their experience of pressure in their practices, and the ways in which such pressure affected patient care. RESULTS: Data were analyzed for 766 physicians involved in managed-care systems. Thirty-eight percent of these physicians reported that their arrangements with the managed-care system included some type of incentive in the form of a bonus. Fifty-seven percent of the physicians reported that they felt pressure from the managed-care organization to limit referrals (17 percent said they believed such pressure compromised patient care), and 75 percent felt pressure to see more patients per day (24 percent believed such pressure compromised patient care). The physicians who reported that their financial arrangements included an incentive based on referrals were more likely than others to have felt pressured to limit referrals in a manner that compromised care (adjusted odds ratio 2.5; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.2 to 5.0), and physicians with an incentive based on productivity were more likely to have felt pressure to see more patients that they believed compromised care (adjusted odds ratio, 2.1; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.2 to 3.8). The physicians whose health care systems used incentives keyed to productivity were less likely than others to be very satisfied with their practices (adjusted odds ratio, 0.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.2 to 0.6), whereas those whose systems included incentives related to the quality of care or patients' satisfaction were more likely to be very satisfied (adjusted odds ratio, 1.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.1 to 3.0). CONCLUSIONS: Many managed-care organizations include financial incentives for primary care physicians that are indexed to various measures of performance. Incentives that depend on limiting referrals or on greater productivity apply selective pressure to physicians in ways that are believed to compromise care. Incentives that depend on the quality of care and patients' satisfaction are associated with greater job satisfaction among physicians.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed1998

Multistate evaluation of anonymous HIV testing and access to medical care. Multistate Evaluation of Surveillance of HIV (MESH) Study Group.

CONTEXT: Infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the only infectious disease for which anonymous testing is publicly funded, an exception that has been controversial. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether anonymous HIV testing was associated with earlier HIV testing and HIV-related medical care than confidential HIV testing. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas. PARTICIPANTS: Probability sample of 835 new acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) cases reported to the state health department's HIV/AIDS Reporting System from May 1995 through December 1996. All had responded to the AIDS Patient Survey; 643 had been tested confidentially for HIV, and 192 had been tested anonymously. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: First CD4+ cell count; number of days from HIV-positive test result to first HIV-related medical care, from first HIV-related medical care to AIDS, and from first HIV-positive test result to AIDS. RESULTS: Persons tested anonymously sought testing and medical care earlier in the course of HIV disease than did persons tested confidentially. Mean first CD4+ cell count was 0.427x 10(9)/L in persons tested anonymously vs 0.267x 10(9)/L in persons tested confidentially. Persons tested anonymously experienced an average of 918 days in HIV-related medical care before an AIDS diagnosis vs 531 days for persons tested confidentially. The mean time from learning they were HIV positive to the diagnosis of AIDS was 1246 days for persons tested anonymously vs 718 days for persons tested confidentially. After adjustment for the subject's age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, income, insurance status, HIV exposure group, whether the respondent had a regular source of care or symptoms at the time of the HIV test, and state residence, anonymous testing remained significantly associated with earlier entry into medical care (P<.001). CONCLUSION: Anonymous testing contributes to early HIV testing and medical care.

AIDS Serodiagnosis↗
PubMed1998

Reorganizing an academic medical service: impact on cost, quality, patient satisfaction, and education.

CONTEXT: Academic medical centers are under enormous pressure to improve quality and cut costs while preserving education. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a reorganized academic medical service, led by faculty members who attended more often and became involved earlier and more intensively in care, would lower costs without compromising quality and education. DESIGN: Alternate-day controlled trial. SETTING: Inpatient academic general medical service. PATIENTS: The 1623 patients discharged from the Moffitt-Long medical service between July 1, 1995, and June 30, 1996. INTERVENTIONS: We divided our 4-team inpatient general medical service into 2 managed care service (MCS) teams and 2 traditional service (TS) teams. The MCS faculty served as attending physicians more often and were required to provide early input into clinical decisions. Patients were assigned to teams based on alternate days of admission. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included resource use and outcomes for MCS vs TS patients, and for MCS patients vs patients seen the previous year, adjusted for demographic characteristics and case mix. Satisfaction of patients, house staff, and faculty was also assessed, as was educational emphasis. RESULTS: A total of 806 patients were admitted to the MCS and 817 to the TS. Demographic characteristics and case mix were similar. Clinical outcomes, including mortality and readmission rates, were also similar, as was patient satisfaction. Resident and faculty satisfaction were high on both services. The average adjusted length of stay of patients on the MCS was 4.3 days vs 4.9 days on the TS and 5 days in 1994-1995 (adjusted P=.01 for MCS vs TS; MCS vs 1994-1995, P<.001). Average adjusted hospital costs were $7007 on the MCS vs $7777 on the TS and $8078 in 1994-1995 (adjusted P=.05 for MCS vs TS; MCS vs 1994-1995, P=.002). CONCLUSIONS: A reorganized academic medical service, led by faculty members who attended more often and became involved earlier and more intensively, resulted in significant resource savings with no changes in clinical outcomes or patient, faculty, and house staff satisfaction.

Academic Medical Centers↗
PubMed1998

Selection and exclusion of primary care physicians by managed care organizations.

CONTEXT: Little is known about the problems physicians may be encountering in gaining access to managed care networks and whether the process used by managed care plans to select physicians is discriminatory. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the incidence and predictors of denials or terminations of physicians' managed care contracts and the impact these denials and terminations had on primary care physicians' involvement with managed care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mail survey of a probability sample of primary care physicians. SETTING: A total of 13 large urban counties in California. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care physicians (family practice, internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, or pediatrics) who work in office-based practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Denial or termination from a contract with an independent practice association (IPA) or health maintenance organization (HMO) and managed care contracts. RESULTS: Of the 947 respondents (response rate, 71%), 520 were involved in office-based primary care. After adjusting for sampling and response rate, 22% of primary care physicians had been denied or terminated from a contract with an IPA or HMO, but 87% of office-based primary care physicians had at least 1 IPA or direct HMO contract. Solo practice was the strongest predictor of having experienced a denial or termination and of having neither an IPA nor a direct HMO contract. Physician age, sex, and race did not predict the level of involvement with managed care. However, physicians' patient demographics were associated with managed care participation; physicians in managed care had significantly lower percentages of uninsured and nonwhite patients in their practices. Physicians experiencing a denial or termination had fewer capitated patients in their practice. CONCLUSIONS: Denials and terminations, although relatively common, do not preclude most primary care physicians from participating in managed care. Managed care selective contracting does not appear to be systematically discriminatory based on physician characteristics, but it may be biased against physicians who provide greater amounts of care to the underserved.

California↗
PubMed1998

Monitoring the consequences of uninsurance: a review of methodologies.

The proportion of the United States population without health insurance continues to grow. How will this affect the health of the nation? Prior research suggests that the uninsured are at risk for poor health outcomes. They use fewer medical services and have higher mortality rates than do insured persons. The episodic nature of uninsurance and its prevalence among disadvantaged groups makes it difficult to ascertain the health effects of uninsurance. The goal of this review is to assist researchers and policy makers in choosing methodologies to assess the effects of uninsurance. It provides a compendium of methods that have been used to examine the health consequences of uninsurance, the populations in which these methods have been used, and the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches. The review highlights the need for more longitudinal studies that focus on community-based samples of the uninsured.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Health benefits and risks of reporting HIV-infected individuals by name.

With more treatment options emerging for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, the policy of reporting HIV-infected individuals by name merits reevaluation. This paper reviews the benefits and risks of name reporting of persons infected with HIV. Public health departments have linked name reporting with medical referrals, risk reduction counseling, and partner notification programs. Yet some studies indicate that people are less likely to be tested for HIV infection when name reporting is implemented. Whether name reporting actually improves individual or public health, therefore justifying the increased risk of loss of confidentiality and possibly reduced testing rates, remains unknown. The lack of health outcome data on name reporting allows beliefs rather than facts to dominate debate about this policy. Before this practice is more widely adopted, a determination should be made as to whether the potential benefits of name reporting outweigh the risks.

AIDS Serodiagnosis↗
PubMed1997

Judging who needs emergency department care: a prerequisite for policy-making.

The debate regarding risks and benefits of triaging nonurgent patients away from emergency departments (EDs) stems from widely varying estimates as to what proportion of ED visits are inappropriate. A study was undertaken based on the hypothesis that these discrepant estimates might be due to differences in how "appropriateness" is defined. This cross-sectional study included 596 ED patients. Seven different indicators of "Inappropriate" ED visits were used. Two could be determined by the patient; two were based on the triage nurse's assessment; three were determined retrospectively, by chart review. All 21 possible pairs of indicators were compared for agreement using the kappa statistic. The proportion of ED visits classified as inappropriate by the different indicators ranged from 10% to 90%. Kappa values for agreement between indicators ranged from -0.04 to 0.31, indicating poor agreement beyond that expected due to chance alone. Decisions as to which ED visits are appropriate depend heavily on the criteria used. Limiting patients' access to EDs without the aid of a valid and reliable standard for what constitutes an appropriate ED visit could create harmful barriers to care.

Cross-Sectional Studies↗
PubMed1997

Primary care and patient perceptions of access to care.

BACKGROUND: Although much is known about how insurance affects access to care, it is unclear whether good primary care contributes to access. The purpose of this study was to determine how optimal primary care given by providers at a regular place of care, defined in terms of continuity, comprehensiveness, communication, and availability, contributed to perceptions of access to care in a large population-based probability sample of adults. METHODS: Data were from a cross-sectional survey of 6674 English- and Spanish-speaking adults 18 to 64 years of age, randomly sampled from 41 urban California communities with a range of levels of access to care. RESULTS: Following adjustment for sociodemographics and need for care, we found that having "optimal" primary care contributed independently to improved self-rated access, as did having health insurance, a regular place, and a regular provider. The largest difference n access was between having any health insurance and not having insurance. Once insurance was available, each additional element contributed in a cumulative manner to self-rated access. For those with insurance and a regular place, adding optimal primary care improved self-rated access to an extent similar to adding a regular provider. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that although providing insurance to the uninsured is the most effective means of improving self-rated access, the other elements each improve access as well. Once insurance and a regular place are provided, good primary care at that place may be equivalent to having a regular provider in terms of perceived access. Results support promotion of primary care as a model of health care that encourages good access.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1996

The role of black and Hispanic physicians in providing health care for underserved populations.

BACKGROUND: Patients who are members of minority groups may be more likely than others to consult physicians of the same race or ethnic group, but little is known about the relation between patients' race or ethnic group and the supply of physicians or the likelihood that minority-group physicians will care for poor or black and Hispanic patients. METHODS: We analyzed data on physicians' practice locations and the racial and ethnic makeup and socioeconomic status of communities in California in 1990. We also surveyed 718 primary care physicians from 51 California communities in 1993 to examine the relation between the physicians' race or ethnic group and the characteristics of the patients they served. RESULTS: Communities with high proportions of black and Hispanic residents were four times as likely as others to have a shortage of physicians, regardless of community income. Black physicians practiced in areas where the percentage of black residents was nearly five times as high, on average, as in areas where other physicians practiced. Hispanic physicians practiced in areas where the percentage of Hispanic residents was twice as high as in areas where other physicians practiced. After we controlled for the racial and ethnic makeup of the community, black physicians cared for significantly more black patients (absolute difference, 25 percentage points; P < 0.001) and Hispanic physicians for significantly more Hispanic patients (absolute difference, 21 percentage points; P < 0.001) than did other physicians. Black physicians cared for more patients covered by Medicaid (P = 0.001) and Hispanic physicians for more uninsured patients (P = 0.03) than did other physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Black and Hispanic physicians have a unique and important role in caring for poor, black, and Hispanic patients in California. Dismantling affirmative-action programs as is currently proposed, may threaten health care for both poor people and members of minority groups.

Black or African American↗
PubMed1996

Primary care and receipt of preventive services.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether health insurance, a regular place of care, and optimal primary care are independently associated with receiving preventive care services. DESIGN: A cross-sectional telephone survey. SETTING: Population based. PARTICIPANTS: Probability sample of 3,846 English-speaking and Spanish-speaking women between the ages of 18 and 64 in urban California. INTERVENTIONS: Women were asked about their demographic characteristics, financial status, health insurance status, need for ongoing care, regular place of care, and receipt of blood pressure screening, clinical breast examinations, mammograms, and Pap smears. Women who reported a regular place of care were asked about four components of primary care: availability, continuity, comprehensiveness, and communication. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In multivariate analyses that controlled for differences in demographics, financial status, and need for ongoing care, having a regular place of care was the most important factor associated with receiving preventive care services (p < .0001). Having health insurance (p < .001) and receiving optimal primary care from the regular place of care (p < .01) further significantly increased the likelihood of receiving preventive care services. CONCLUSION: A regular source of care is the single most important factor associated with the receipt of preventive services, but optimal primary care from a regular place increases the likelihood that women will receive preventive care.

Adolescent↗